Well, in all fairness, that's kind of two different things. Although they are indirectly related as a result of economies of scale. How they are
able attain these economies of scale is really the issue, but perhaps that's what you meant.

I don't know how bad this is on a scale of 1 to 10, but the Trade-Tariff threats exchanged between the U.S. and China have ratcheted up another notch
today.

China’s commerce ministry on Friday said it would fight the U.S. at “any cost” after President Donald Trump threatened to impose tariffs on an
additional $100 billion in Chinese imports.

Trump asked the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to consider lobbing additional tariffs against China in light of the country’s “illicit trade
practices” that have “destroyed thousands of American factories and millions of American jobs.”

On Tuesday the Trump administration announced a tariff on 1,300 products from China, including medical, aerospace and information technology
accounting for nearly $50 billion in annual imports.

Prior to that, additional tariffs were placed on Chinese steel and aluminum.

The Chinese government fired back with $3 billion in tariffs of its own, targeting American goods.

Here is what I don't understand.. In a free-market society, consumers buy what they want. If it costs less, and gets the job done, that's the
product we purchase.

If that more appealing product comes from China, Viet Nam, Canada, or wherever.. we don't care. That's what global free-market capitalism is all
about.

So why punish another country because they produce low priced products that consumers, businesses, and factories in America CHOOSE to purchase? The
U.S. government charging the Chinese (or anyone) a penalty for supplying what Americans are asking for, will raise the cost of that product for
Americans, which is cruel.

Reminds me of the of that horrible ObamaCare fine/tax for not having government-approved health insurance. The U.S. government says, "Do it our way,
or pay a big $$$ penalty!"

U.S. companies can do what's necessary internally, to produce the same product at an even lower cost, if they want a larger U.S. market share.
Right?

-CareWeMust

Nope...China would just produce those things cheaper still...What is now on our side is that Trump has diminished many of the regulations that
prevent business from succeeding here in the US...

And free, unfettered trade is not the American way...We want 'fair' trade...When china sells us 800 billion worth of goods but will only allow 150
billion worth of goods to be sold in their country, it's time to balance the trade...That's what this is all about...And I'm all for it...

Perhaps Trump should practice what he preaches. Guess where Trumps line of products is made? Or does the Trump family get a pass on "made in
america" because you know He's Trump! Trump can outsource and still MAGA...lol

No, economies of scale apply to shipping of products too, and actually this is a huge deal.

For example, the cost difference to send an empty container ship from China to the US versus the cost of a fully loaded one is negligible (for all
intents and purposes). That's not to say the cost is negligible (it's not), but the cost difference is negligible. In other words, it costs
just as much. So, if you put one container full of products on that ship it costs whatever the shipping cost of the ship is amortized over the
contents of the container. That shipping cost, per unit, is going to be STAGGERING on a per unit basis for this shipment. However, put 3,000
containers on that same ship, all full to the bursting point with products, and now that per unit cost for shipping drops by orders of magnitude, down
to just pennies per unit. Remember, the cost of the ship, fuel, labor, insurance, etc. is the same, regardless of whether it's full or empty.

So, you very much do have significant economies of scale when it comes to shipping.

ETA...when you mail a letter it's a completely different scenario. Sure that one letter is going to cost you $3, but if you mailed a whole container
load of those envelopes, say 2,000,000 of them, it won't cost anywhere near that per unit. Why? Because it's going to get loaded on a ship with
3,000 other containers full of 2,000,000 envelopes each. Works the same way for going by air, just a different (more expensive) mode of
transport. AND, if you're trying to compare shipping by air against by sea, you're comparing apples to hammers.

The ships / containers / planes still have to make a return trip to be able to bring back more stuff. If less stuff is going back then there's spare
room so it should be cheaper to ride the coat tails back.

This goes way beyond economies of scale.

Sure, for one guy to get a container and ship 4000 sacks of widgets versus a guy that wants to ship one sack of widgets there is economies of scale.

But on a National Level, the price to mail an empty envelope via regular mail... it costing a Chinese person 'ONE CENT' to mail an empty
envelope versus a US person having to pay THREE DOLLARS to mail the same envelope back... economies of scale just isnt hardly the place to look for
the lop side.

Well, that's all fine and good...IF you're willing to wait a month or longer to get your envelope there.

I'm afraid you're not understanding the concept very well.

I am not suggesting cost differences are ONLY a result of shipping economies of scale, but rather just part of the reasons.

Additionally, your analogy is not accurate also. The return cost is built into the initial shipping costs (the return trip with whatever meager
exports is essentially free). Exports going to China are generally not manufactured goods, but rather raw materials and those don't go by container
ship, they go by bulk carrier vessels.

ETA...In any case the competitive edge of Chinese export goods is significantly enhanced through economies of scale in shipping. To think otherwise
would be a mistake. You're also overlooking the inefficiencies of the USPS and the overland costs to get to a US port in your envelope example. Not
to mention the fact that most mail (envelopes) go to China via air, not by sea...back to the apples and hammers comparison.

False. Trump is saying stop subsidizing your companies, taking a short term loss with the long term goal of driving away US competition, or we will
retaliate by imposing tariffs to offset your subsidization. It's about leveling the playing field so that US companies and jobs are not lost forever.

I'm a little old, but I would gladly enlist and grab some of the best shooters in my state to handle these country wrecking sleeze balls.

I'm old mate and been in engineering in UK all my life. I'd happily press the button to nuke China if I could, they destroyed my countries engineering
they don't play it fair. Nuke em, I don't honestly see any benefit around my parts to having China exist at all.

You are a complete moron, brainwashed by your own government. Anyone who wishes such a thing obviously has problems!

I also costs over $2 to ship one ounce domestic. Over $2 to ship a one ounce parcel from here to the next county over in your own state.

China can ship two packages each with items that weigh several ounces, to here, pay all the ebay etc fees, and have the USPS carry thru the domestic
shipping system, to your mailbox (with tracking), for exactly $2.

Thankyou for that comprehensive chart. It looks like China really ramped up their steel production in 2007. A big global demand for their product
must have materialized around that time.

A big global demand for their PRICE materialised at that time, from companies who don't care about quality or customers, only profit.

Only care about profits...... Hmm sounds like capitalism to me, when you have unlimited customers you don't care about quality, this is what happens
when capitalism goes unchecked, it's a simple case of power corrupts.

Don't disagree. Pure capitalism is dangerous. The end game of pure capitalism is one person owns everything. We'll never quite get there of course
under any capitalist system but left unchecked you end up with the kind of sh*t show we have now where just a few companies control the entire
world.

Tariffs are just his tool to either slow the trade imbalance or open Chinese markets with fair trade.

Just like threatening to pull out of NAFTA wasn't to raise new tariffs but to negotiate a
better deal.

Just like threatening to 86 the trade agreement with South Korea produced massively underreported
con
cessions from Seoul.

We have enormous leverage with a multi-trillion dollar consumer market. We just never use it because Wall St. only cares about cheap labor and profit
margin, not the US industrial base or American workers. And Wall St owns the press (and more than a few politicians).

Globalism and free market capitalism can never work.
Why? Because conditions in different countries create an unfair economic advantage. Why should China have a pricing advantage just because they treat
their people like slaves?
Add in that tariffs are already uneven. There was no 'free' trade to begin with.
Countries like China have been screwing the world over, stealing ideas, using near slave labour and undercutting markets. Corporations are delighted
- they can use near slave labour to make even more money and in the process screw over the countries where they actually built their companies.

This is probably the dumbest post on economics I have ever read and it's number of stars is a sign of how many people simply have no clue how
economic history and markets have worked.

Globalism and cheap prices are as old as the first large scale trade civilizations.

Funny socialists and "neo conservatives" both seem to hate and misunderstand the market.

Tariffs are just his tool to either slow the trade imbalance or open Chinese markets with fair trade.

Just like threatening to pull out of NAFTA wasn't to raise new tariffs but to negotiate a
better deal.

Just like threatening to 86 the trade agreement with South Korea produced massively underreported
con
cessions from Seoul.

We have enormous leverage with a multi-trillion dollar consumer market. We just never use it because Wall St. only cares about cheap labor and profit
margin, not the US industrial base or American workers. And Wall St owns the press (and more than a few politicians).

Uh...no.

These deals should happen slowly.

Why.

The economy stupid to quote another scumbag.

Anyone with a high school economics education understands the global marketplace and the symbiosis from American workers relying on supply chains and
exports more than trump and people who support a trade war.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.